Any random internet search for ‘primary school staff’ tells an interesting story. Most Primary schools’ website staff pages present a gallery of smiling teachers, ready and willing to teach whoever comes through their classroom doors. Look a little closer, however, and a pattern begins to emerge.

Those who teach in Year 6 are generally older than their colleagues, and tend to have sort of management responsibility. Whilst this is less true for Year 2 teachers, they tend to have a bit for experience and responsibility than the other teachers.

Where a school has photographs of its teachers – and most do these days – the clearest pattern emerges. Primary school teachers are nearly all under the age of 45. Older primary teachers clearly exist, but they are almost as rare as men in Primary classrooms.

Official figures bear this out. Just 28% of all primary teachers are over the age of 45 (and just 15% are men).In 2011, the percentages were 33% and 14%. So the number of men in Primary has hardly changed, but the average age of primary school teachers is dropping at an alarming rate.

Internationally, Primary Teachers in England have been an outlier in terms of age for some time. OECD statistics suggest that 27% of primary teachers in the UK were under the age of 30 in 2016. This compares to just 0.5% of Italian primary teachers, 8% of German primary teachers and 9% of Finnish primary teachers.

All of this suggests that, contrary to the often held view that ‘good teachers’ are what matters when it comes to children’s education, in the classroom at least, the UK has opted for a cheap and cheerful model rather than choosing to pay for (relatively) expensive experience.

A look at international pay structures helps to explain why primary schools employ fresh-faced youngsters. The UK, in common with many other countries, uses a ‘single salary’ structure. In essence, this means that teachers start on a low salary, and then advance up a pay scale based on experience. In England first year teachers are paid £22,917, which rises to £33,824 after six years in the classroom. This is an increase of almost 50% in pay, and therefore cost, of a relatively experienced teacher.

In contrast, French primary teachers start their careers being paid US$26,247 and after 10 years rise to US$31,689, and increase of just 20%. German primary teachers go from US$50,007 to US$59,795 (20% more). Finns advance from US$32,148 to US$37,212 (16% more).

These figures alone provide a clear explanation for the preponderance of young teachers in English primary classroom. There are other factors of course, and the outcry about the heavy workload which has been heaped on teachers in England has dominated headlines for some time. Yet another factor is the somewhat strange method of recruiting teachers, which puts nearly all of the power in the hands of those recruiting and almost none in those of teachers looking to teach. The government continues to train large numbers of teachers, and more than half of the teaching jobs which come up each school year are filled by newly qualified rookies.

All of this is leading seems to be the situation whereby primary teaching - at least in the classroom - is becoming. a short term career. I'd be interested in your thoughts, so do please comment below.

I’m debating this and other areas to do with recruitment and retention issues at ResearchEd’s national conference, putting forward a primary perspective in a Teachers v Researchers Crisis in teaching panel session with Karen Wespieser, Emma Kell and Sam Sims. I’m looking forward to the discussion, to reporting back in a follow up blog.

Great points. I was fortunate to get another UPS3 job. But I was bullied out of my last school. During my grievance I made it clear that I was aware of recent OECD evidence that only 48% of teachers have over 10yrs experience. It's all about the money, money, money... I lost my grievance (because of the total unaccountability of academies). A moral victory however.

I don't know the figures but I'd guess that the situation is the same in secondary schools. I think the days are gone when teachers, primary or secondary, would be teaching the children, even grandchildren, of their first pupils. Staffing costs account for a large amount of any school's expenditure. Makes sense from a financial point of view (but not an educational one) to make older teachers redundant (or hope they'll be burnt out and go) and replace them with NQTs, trainees or even unqualified personnel masquerading as 'teachers'.

Reply

Jan

11/9/2017 04:01:10 pm

I worked for a decade or so (2000 – 2012) for a local authority leading on primary NQT induction. This included support, advice and guidance to both NQTs and their schools. Before this I had served two primary headships and had significant experience in both teacher recruitment and induction, including of NQTs. During the 2000s (is that the correct way to write it? Apologies if not.) There was a notable change in the NQT profile. In our LA schools were recruiting a higher percentage of mature NQTs for many of whom teaching was a change of career. My colleagues in other authorities reported similar trends. I have no formal data to offer you though. If this was a national trend one would expect to see more older teachers now as those who were 30+ in 2000 would be pushing 50 now. However we were also seeing a huge number of NQTs employed on short-term contracts which doesn’t encourage stability at the beginning of one’s career.
In terms of schools choosing to recruit NQTs rather than experienced teachers is that more to do with experienced teachers not moving about as they might have forty years ago? There are far fewer promotion posts being offered than when I was a young teacher so unless you have to move location why would an experienced teacher choose to move schools unless they had to? Data seems to support the view that fewer teachers are seeking promotion anyway so maybe they might think why put myself through all the hassle of moving schools just to get experience that maybe I don’t really need because I’m doing OK where I am.
I’ve never seen an NQT appointment as a cheap option because if it’s done properly it isn’t. The induction tutor needs to be properly trained and given adequate release time to do the job. The NQT has to be given the FTE of a day a week release which should include a planned programme of CPD. Maybe some schools cut corners on these requirements and that’s why NQTs are seen as a less costly option.

I wonder if you might expand your thoughts on what you mean by:
"Yet another factor is the somewhat strange method of recruiting teachers, which puts nearly all of the power in the hands of those recruiting and almost none in those of teachers looking to teach."

I certainly thought some NQTs accepted posts in schools which didn't suit them and perhaps explained why they ran into difficulties during their induction.

Reply

Richard Selfridge

3/11/2017 12:48:44 pm

Thank you for this comment, Jan, and apologies for taking so long to approve it.

You ask me to expand what I mean by "Yet another factor is the somewhat strange method of recruiting teachers, which puts nearly all of the power in the hands of those recruiting and almost none in those of teachers looking to teach."

I’m referring here to the way in which schools interview and appoint teachers. David Didau wrote a useful piece summarising the typical teacher recruitment process (http://www.learningspy.co.uk/leadership/designing-effective-school-interviews-part-1/) which includes the following:

• All candidates for the job are invited in to the school on the same day.
• Candidates have to plan a lesson for a class they know almost nothing about beyond year group and ability.
• The interview day typically consists of a tour of the school, being observed teaching a lesson, being interviewed by students, with a final formal interview.
• The last interview question is always, “If you were offered the job would you accept it?”
• The interviewing panel discuss who they want to appoint and, later the same day, contact the successful candidate who has to make an immediate decision.

At best, you can chose where you apply, but not where you work. The recruitment window is very narrow. You can’t influence the date of interviews, which would enable you to prioritise different jobs. The ‘if you were offered the job, would you take it’ question is hugely restricting. You can do very little to improve your chance of being employed at a given school, and getting a job is largely dumb luck and persistence. In my experience, it’s largely a beauty parade in which the recruiting school makes decisions using unstated criteria which you can only guess at.

I’d also say that, for those currently working in one school and looking to move to another school, the expectation is that you tell your current employer you want to move and that your current head teacher must act as a referee. Given the lottery nature of getting a job elsewhere, this can create the horrible situation in which your boss knows you want to leave but you haven't left yet. Additionally, you are expected to give a term’s notice of your intention to leave your current school. All of this, in my experience, provides huge disincentives for anyone who might be considering a move to another school.

No wonder those with experience either don't move schools or choose to leave teaching altogether.

Reply

Jan

3/11/2017 03:32:59 pm

Thanks for your reply Richard. I read David Didau's piece and thought it was interesting that he revised his view that holding all the interviews on the same day was a 'bad thing' . The most difficult constraint for teacher interviews are the notice deadlines. If one of your teachers resigns on the last day possible it becomes even trickier to recruit in time to fill that vacancy.......you know all this stuff of course. I strongly agreed that too much of the interview day is not useful. My advice to headteachers has always been to visit the candidates on your long list and watch them teach in their current setting. In this way I believe you get a much better idea of the candidate’s overall strengths. If a candidate is unemployed or an NQT not on a practice then invite them in to your school for a supply day to give them an opportunity to be observed. Obviously you’d only watch them for the same amount of time as other candidates. After having watched all the long list candidates (if you’re lucky enough to have that many!) you can decide who you’ll call for interview. We should be able to assume that any qualified teacher will meet the given criteria of being able to teach to at least a good standard but I still see teacher person specs which have a billion bullet points most of which simply dissect the standards. I wonder whether doctors are required to carry out procedures when they apply for posts or barristers conduct a cross examination? For me watching someone teach gives me a significant insight into their style and how they might work as part of the tram I might be building. Seeing them in their current situ allows me to see them at their potential best (and see their room, talk to their pupils, etc.). Having got the lesson observation out of the way the panel can focus on the key traits that are needed for the job. For example you can help a teacher improve their teaching of a subject area but if their attitude to learning is diametrically opposed to yours and the schools it probably wouldn’t be a good appointment.
I’ve always favoured getting members of the school council to interview candidates. It gives you a chance to see how each candidate interacts with your pupils and, in my opinion, children are very astute at uncovering bluff. .......if that makes sense. Another technique which I think is useful is to ask candidates to do a short presentation (however they want) on something that’s nothing o do with education.
I think this is such an interesting area. I guess I’m thinking about it a little more from the employer point of view but, having suffered some awful interviews as a teacher when I started out, I determined when I was first began making appointments that any interview process in which I was involved would be as positive for all participants as possible; that definitely included not sending candidates home at lunchtime. I know there are schools around whose appointment procedures are not as open as they should be (“ In my experience, it’s largely a beauty parade in which the recruiting school makes decisions using unstated criteria which you can only guess at.”) but I think that often backfires on the employer.

Richard Selfridge

3/11/2017 04:43:48 pm

Thanks once again, Jan. It's really useful to see your comments on this.

The issue of notice deadlines is an interesting one. In reality, it’s an artificial constraint put in place by schools, not teachers, although – as you say, it ends up being an issue for schools too if teachers resign on the last day of the termly window. Taking a broader view, I suspect it is probably worth reconsidering the way things are done now. Instead of taking a ‘housing chain’ approach in which everyone moves at the same time, it might be better to allow teachers to leave at a time which suits them, and then to fill temporary vacancies with supply/short term contracts, before recruiting when it suits you as a school. This would be new and radical, but it’s worth pursuing, I think.

Interview lessons stifle innovative teaching, as far as I can see, as they force everyone into a bizarre game of ‘guess what the school wants to see’ in exactly the same way that Ofsted show lessons used to. As you say, the general assumption is that most interviewers want to see if candidates ‘attitude to learning is diametrically opposed to yours and the schools’. This reinforces my point: as a candidate, you simply have to guess what the interviewer is looking for, and then decide whether you are going give them what they want or not. Incidentally, I’d be interested to see whether people really do show what their attitude to learning is when delivering show lessons, or if you simply see lots of people doing whatever is currently held to be in vogue…

Reply

Jan

3/11/2017 05:46:11 pm

When I first applied for jobs the application letter asked you to set out 'your philosophy of education', which is an interesting concept. I think the intention was you candidates to talk about what they believed teaching and learning should be like and how they did that in practice. In my experience of reading many applications, including for headships, too many candidates end up regurgitating whatever is fashionable or what they believe is wanted from having read the application pack. I believe passionately that teachers should have a philosophy about teaching and learning that is informed by practice, experience and research. My advice would always be to be true to that or you might find you accept a post somewhere and it really isn’t what you wanted but the school thought you were someone else because that was how you appeared at interview.
I agree absolutely about notice dates. My understanding is that governing bodies do have the option to be more flexible but few take that opportunity.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Leave a Reply.

Author

Me?
I work in primary education and have done for ten years. I also have children
in primary school. I love teaching, but I think that school is a thin layer of icing on top of a very big cake, and that the misunderstanding of test scores is killing the love of teaching and learning.